EU Budget 2026: Welfare, Not Weapons

Recognizing family caregivers as workers. Petition

18th November 2025

Disability reform in Italy: the state of the art

4 December 2025

Published by Dario Dongo on 27th November 2025

The tension between military security and social security

The letter highlights a central issue: the distinction between military security and human security. The former focuses on armaments and deterrence; the latter on basic needs such as public health, job security, economic stability, access to food and housing, and environmental protection.

From a welfare perspective, this distinction is essential. A massive increase in military spending not only absorbs financial resources, but produces indirect social costs: reduced investments in health and social inclusion policies, territorial cohesion, civil research, and ecological transition.

The letter explicitly warns of the risk of diverting funds from programs such as cohesion policy, research (Horizon), digitalization, education, mobility, and diplomacy. This type of reallocation threatens the entire European welfare ecosystem, which is based precisely on these pillars.

Civil Society Critique: Transparency, Lobbying, and Democracy

One of the most relevant elements of the letter concerns the growing influence of the arms industry on institutions European. According to the reported data:

the lobbying budgets of the top ten arms companies increased by 40% in just one year;

in 2025 the Commission met with military industry lobbyists 89 times, compared to only 15 interactions with NGOs, trade unions or the scientific community;

MEPs had 197 meetings with representatives of the arms industry in one year, more than double the number in the previous five years.

From the perspective of welfare protection, these dynamics alter the democratic balance: social policies—less structured in terms of lobbying, but crucial to daily life—risk losing political centrality.

The letter also denounces the inclusion, in the legislative packages 'defense omnibus', Of exceptions to social standards, environmental, ethical and corporate responsibility issues, which undermine decades of European regulations protecting workers, health and the environment.

The risk of a new extractive economic model

From the welfare perspective, military spending does not only represent a diversion of funds, but a economic paradigm shift.

The model outlined by the ReArm Europe plan and the MFF 2028–2034 directs public resources towards:

military production;

industrial supply chains with low direct social impact;

technologies dual-use (civil and military) often removed from the logic of accountability.

It is a extractive model, which demands sacrifices from European citizens and welfare states – through debt, reduced social investment, and reduced services – to support the giants of the war industry.

This approach contrasts with the vision promoted by the letter, which is based on preventive diplomacy, social justice, investing in community resilience, strengthening public services, and promoting environmental sustainability.

Peace as public policy: a social investment

The text proposes a broad concept of positive peace, founded on human rights, social inclusion and the reduction of inequalities, government transparency and democratic participation. These are the same values that underpin welfare policies.

Peace economists show how invest in education, healthcare, and social networks and ecological transition drastically reduces the risk of conflict, increasing stability and prosperity.

The militarization of the European budget, on the other hand, is destined to weaken social and environmental policies, amplify inequalities, reduce democratic spaces, and generate industrial and financial dependencies.

Concrete demands: an agenda for European welfare

The letter puts forward proposals consistent with welfare protection:

reject the 2026 EU budget and reopen negotiations for restore balance between military spending and social policies;

strengthen diplomacy, conflict prevention and human rights by allocating funds currently directed to the military industry;

protect social norms and environmental from derogations and exceptions introduced in the legislative packages for defense;

counter marginalization of civil society, essential for the democratic quality of the EU;

rethink the MFF 2028–2034, rejecting funds earmarked for the militarization of space and redirecting resources towards health, poverty, education, and climate.

Conclusions

The Open Letter to Members of the European Parliament is not just an appeal against rearmament: it's a manifesto for the protection of European welfare.

The militarization of budgets, growing pressure from arms industry lobbyists, and the risk of weakening civilian policies directly challenge the Union's founding vision: peace, social justice, and shared prosperity.

Reaffirming the primacy of social policies It means investing in community resilience, cohesion, and shared security—the kind that comes from rights, decent work, a healthy environment, and strengthening public services.

In an era marked by multiple crises—climate, health, economic—the choice between rearmament and welfare is not just a question of budget, but of a model of society. And the future of the European project, as well as our lives, will depend on which of these visions prevails.

#Égalité #PaceTerraDignità

Dario Dongo

Note

StopReArm Europe (2025, November 21). Over 800 organizations call on MEPs to shift funds from war to peace. https://stoprearmitalia.it/fermiamo-aumento-spese-militari/

readings: 1.626